[Suggestion] Time for a new map?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Sky_collapsed BL, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. TRspy007

    I would love to see some geological obstacles added to the game. Rains that could flood some areas and cause patches of quicksand or mud to form and slow down vehicles for a while. Hurricanes and other climate events that even though do not affect players much, add another layer to the game. Maybe even add some implants to fight some climate caused obstacles.
  2. Sky_collapsed BL

    I disagree. I've played other games with geological stuff and from what i've experienced they only add annoyances to a game.
  3. r4zor

    Well, that's your opinion and not necessarily true. Same goes for my take on this problem ;)

    According to your stance any new addition will leave some players with negative feelings towards the game. New guns? Some will say its OP. New vehicles? Some will say they are imbalanced. New alerts? Some will say they are boring etc etc. Following your argumentation we better just optimize the game and then let it die a slow, painful death.

    On the other hand, there are loads of games that introduce new updates/expansions with new content such as new maps, new game modes, new weapons, vehicles etc and profit from renewed interest in the game. Of course there are some players who don't like them but that's the way it is. In general these "expansions" create more interest than disinterest. Therefore I stand with my point that PS2 needs new content, but I agree, we desperately need optimizations (DX11) too!

    The things you suggest, like player made bases being objectives etc have been tried (HIVEs) OR are not worthwhile to follow now due to PS2onPS4 not supporting it. So the devs have to consider such obstacles as well.
    Same goes for another continent revamp. They have been revamped like twice now and IMHO except for the vulnerability to vehicle camping the bases are much better now. I doubt the devs will invest more time to re-balance the continents again because of how little gain it brings and how little "look here is new content" effect it has.

    As for TrollSlayer:
    So you don't like the gunplay? Good. You don't like the inventory? Okay. You don't like the cert system? Fine. -> *

    But what has that to do with the meta-gameplay of capping continents? What has that to do with the meta-gameplay of lattice links? What many PS1 players supposed/demanded was that PS2 needs more meaningful combat, more important tactics, more immersive feeling etc. When you cap a continent in PS2 now it follows along the same path all the time: Unlock, Alert, Alert, Alert, Alert and whoever has more than 36% of the continent wins the alert and magically transforms the continent into a locked continent (we don't even have a "domino-effect" animation on the map where the bases get capped one after another when winning the alert...). What do you earn? Some ISO, some certs, maybe a decal or something rarer. And half a day later the whole crap begins again because the continent unlocks again.

    In PS1 there were meaningful benefits to the non-homecontinent continents like - for example - a slight layer of shielding to vehicles (only 10% of its armor value) that meant it was worth capturing the continent. Continents had to be unlocked by capturing the first base connected to your warpgate so the defending empire had the chance to defend the continent and keep it locked. It meant you needed some kind of organisation which promoted Outfits playing together and defending or attacking together. It meant you could sneak on a locked continent and attempt to capture a base/drain a base to open it up leading to spec-ops style gameplay for those WHO WANTED(!)

    All this is missing in PS2 because SOE was lazy and pushed the game too early, then laid off their workers before it was finished. And these things could be added back by introducing 2 more continents (Oshur and Searhus (+ Esamir + Amerish + Indar + Hossin) which means we would have six continents to fight over and essentially a nice 2vs2vs2 continent layout (see below) in which each faction could have a homecont-style warpgate and would have to fight from then on. We could still have warpgate rotation like now through an alert, after which the warpgates/empires rotate again to mix things up (actually we had such rotation in PS1 as well but not often enough).


    This is just a quick mock-up of what could be if a) PS-Devs finally finish Searhus (as I said it was "under construction" and there are already some props in the game files) and b) decide to introduce inter-continental lattice.

    And yes, I know that current population levels might be a problem at introducing this. Just posting this to see what Meta could be like.

    * Now as for the things you didn't like about PS1: Well, they aren't in PS2 and would be too much to transfer (especially the certifications - although IMHO they were more new-player-friendly than what we have now), so our interests surely wouldn't collide here :p
  4. TR5L4Y3R

    no but planetside does share a lot of things that are common in rts games .. realy the difference is that in planetside every minuteaction is done by you instead of telling an AI were to get ressources, were to attack with what or which position to consolidate ..
    that´s also why this game unlike a rts imo does not work well with many hardcounters such as bursters and skyguards against vehicles f.e. or the very low pitchet turrets to be unable to attack air ..

    i don´t see adding naval combat or indirect fire combat (which are like the only other 2 styles of combat i can think of besides the stuff we already have) keeping players for long considering that planetsides 2 mainfocus is still on capturing points that are within bases for the most part ..

    also a naval aircraftcarrier that doesn´t have much range for mobility may as well be just a stationary airstaging tower ..
    not to forget we already have an aircraftcarrier that flies .. which thinking about it might be more intresting to bring in something like a airattackship instead of any naval vessel

    indeed there are many areas were PS2 is lacking to keep players intrested
    worst of which is that the easiest way to grind certs is ammongs the more boring actions to do and takes away from the combataction ..
    certain battletheaters being more dominant than is actualy good for the game
    and certain classes lacking tools or ways to defend themselves when it might be better that there should be levels of capability than being entirely helpless ..

    the biggest struggle imho however is for people to understand that there is no matchmaking and that you get thrown into the sharkpit with any level of player ... and depending on how big the fight is and how many skilled players there are at the time you may find yourself dying more often than being capable of doing anything with or without a squad/outfit ...

    so again considering the afformentioned points i don´t see naval combat adding or changing much to the game ..
  5. TR5L4Y3R

    ANNNNND here we go again with sweeping generalisations ...

    oh and namecalling even .. but sure i like to slay trolls like you ..

    "But what has that to do with the meta-gameplay of capping continents?"

    the meta matters jack when the coregameplayloop is not enjoyable plain and simple ..
    also continental benefits had a tendency to snowball, thats why they were changed or taken out ..

    as for more maps having a negative effect .. for one that depends on how many maps are open at the same time
    but considering the current populatation even with the dynamic expanding battleareamechanic it´s a matter of if the map is good enough by itself or not
    want a prime example? hossin (though personaly i take hossin over amerish) .. for many the moment hossin is unlocked they just go and log off because how much they dislike the map .. now you may say .. how bout unlocking more maps then ... yea we had this before which lead to the population being spread thinner across the continents ... which may also answer why the continents aren´t connected as you want it to be like in PS 1 .. because it would easily lead to certain maps being not fought on and be taken by a single faction were then the primary battle is fought on one or two maps ... because having favorite maps is a thing you know and people can fight on one or 2 maps for hours and don´t give a crp about the other 20 ...
    • Up x 1
  6. Demigan

    It's not opinion, it's simple deduction. This will happen, this will have a negative effect on the game. Even if Oshur is the perfect map, it'll just make people dislike the other maps more than before and people will be more inclined to log off when their favorite map isn't in the rotation. There is quite literally no scenario where a new continent will help... As long as we have the current gameplay problems and population counts.

    Yes! Let's compare the choice of using a new weapon (assuming it's even in your faction) to being stuck on a continent that you may or may not like to each other! That's not going to hurt your credibility when you actively try to twist words so obviously in order to make your argument work!

    Needless to say (or do I need to say it? Seriously?) my argument has no negative bearing on adding new weapons, vehicles, alerts etc. In fact if you had any reading comprehension you might have noticed this thing I did where I said they should be focusing on such things instead of a continent. But hey, apparently I'm in denial rather than you...

    And the big difference between PS2 and those other games is...? Can you guess it? Could it be the fact that in other games you can set up a game and pick the map yourself perhaps? And that you don't condemn 900+ players simultaneously to playing on one single continent?

    As for new content, it should always serve a purpose. Randomly adding new vehicles, weapons and game modes will not automatically improve the game, and could trivialise parts of the game. For example people have asked for a removal of class-systems in the past and re-adding PS1's inventory system. This will automatically fail as it won't support the existing gameplay. The weapons, abilities and capabilities aren't designed for so much freedom, and you would immediately see a few superior setups emerge which means large parts of the game would be left unused. You are better off going even farther in the class-system by giving each more unique ways to execute certain roles so the choice of advantages each class has has to be weighed off against their disadvantages as the battlefield changes.

    No they haven't been tried. You are generalizing it too much. It's like saying "well we tried Flashes and they weren't very effective, so we are not going to use Lightnings, MBT's, Sunderers, ANT's and Harassers". HIVE's had tremendous problems in their execution, the way players could build them anywhere, were rewarded for avoiding combat and making their bases as unfun as possible to attack. The idea's I gave would encourage combat around PMB's and allow the developers to control the environment the PMB's are build in to prevent PMB's from being focussed on screwing over their attackers and more focused on providing as fun and engaging gameplay for both sides.
    The beauty is that even without PMB's it would work as the FOB's would have a small amount of basic defenses and terrain features around to encourage a battle there. Similar to how bases are outfitted with Sunderer Garages or terrain features to protect a Sunderer from too much direct attack and foster longer and more engaging battles.

    But I wonder why I'm telling you because so far you seem to have had zero reading comprehension. I guess it's more for other people reading this.

    It has an immense effect and immense gains if done right. Just the addition of rotating capture mechanics for each base could make each continent feel as fresh as an actual new continent but it would also help solve some standing problems with gameplay. A new continent wouldn't do that, and would have all the aforementioned negatives as well. especially since Oshur is being designed around the worst balanced part of the game right now and would actually add to the problems of the game, rather than subtract.
  7. r4zor

    Demigan quoted you with "Trollslayer" on page one, so I thought that would be your name, sorry :( nothing personal.

    @ Demigan: Another one going totally over the top with ad hominems...Not sure where your hospitality comes from, as I was obviously just simplyfying things to boil it down without bloating up the post too much. In case the wording may have been off/too aggressive, I apologize, being non-native and not from US/UK surely means missing the right word from time to time...
  8. TR5L4Y3R

    apologies on that one then ..
  9. Talthos

    Eh. I'm just sick of the performance drop that occurs over an extended play session, even when my settings are reduced to basically nothing.

    Rather, after an hour or so, the frame rate is noticeably worse, even at an empty warpgate. And repairing stuff causes very brief stutters in 1 second intervals, while I'm holding down left-click to maintain repairs. Again, it only happens around the 1 hour mark, and then stays at that 'worsened' level until I restart the game.
  10. Demigan

    I would like to educate you, this is the word hypocrite: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

    You quite literally avoid making an argument by saying I attack you personally. I'm not attacking you PERSONALLY, I'm taking your words and pointing out how ridiculous they are, and how little value they have in the argument. If you think that is a personal attack I have the perfect remedy: dont post ridiculous stuff or try to argue with false pretenses.

    More on point, your "simplification" is a bald twisting of my words in order to fabricate a bad argument for me, and not even to make an argument for yourself but to try and make my argument look bad.

    So if you are wondering where agression comes from, attempting to lie and twist peoples words is often a reason people's vocabulary turns more hostile. That shouldnt be a surprise regardless of being non-native to the language or not.
  11. Sky_collapsed BL

    What do you mean by attackship? Like something with the abilities as the aforementioned aircraft carrier? Because that would be totally horrible. It is bad enough when people get personel transport in the air, they are too powerful, can go anywhere and their weapons are waaaaaaay too op. I was in a reaver the other day and 95 percent of my health was getting obliterated in one shot which is simply just unfair.

    Ammongs? You mean dropping heaps of ammopacks? Perhaps the best thing to do is give higher points for a kill. Currently I believe it is only like 110 points for a standard kill, when you can instead ammo spam and make more in big battle or just ant farm what's the point in getting in combat when the points you earn is too low?

    Well it's an mmo so balancing is pretty difficult. I've had my issues with unfair balance but and when it gets too bad I often just leave or moggle by myself ant farming to try and calm myself down.

    Naval combat could at least add more interesting ways of doing combat and/or making a map. Even if we don't have aircraft carriers in it, it could be fun to have small scale naval combat.

    Simply just adding in a map won't bring back people to this game, something WAY more drastic needs to happen and that's either adding a new way of doing combat in this game or something.

    Hell, it may even be time to completely re-do how continent locking works and how capturing bases work. Currently it's just one big zerg rush to pre-defined bases.
  12. Sky_collapsed BL

    I routinely have more than one hour sessions. I believe my longest was around 110 minutes and I have never experienced worsening performance the longer I play.

    I really don't like saying things like this, but,,, are you sure there's not some issues with your system? Mine is fairly old and outdated atm but I seem to do fine on medium with no performance issues.

    I did have issues when I first came back to the game after a long break but I found that display fusion was causing the issues. Are you running any software for a multi monitor setup?
  13. DeadlyOmen

    New maps create new tears.

    It is fun to watch people cry.

    Yes, we need more new maps. Players will enjoy the tears and the variety of gameplay.
  14. TR5L4Y3R

    a attack ship in the sence that it attacks gals and libs and is capable to bombard bastions with limited weapons to defend itself from ground but overall is slower or as slow as a gal ... the reason air is OP is bacause G2A and A2A sucks, but skyknights of course will tell otherwise ... that 95% shot you are talking about is most likely done from a projectile you can in most cases easily evade and has huge projectile drop ..

    i primarily mean gathering cortium, the other 2 are repearing and reviving ..
    and no, points to kill is exactly the worst thing to do .. instead there should be better points to flanking, hit and run, scouting etc... ... CAPTURING AND DEFENDING bases .. add infantrydeterence ... .. you DON`T want people to focus on killsteals and K/D .. that should be secondary ..

    yes but that should not be neccesary farming cortium should be an optional thing to do to get certs .. it should not become the main way of certing for novice players ..

    as i said torward razor connecting the maps like it was the case in PS1 with the current population will probably do worse than good especialy considering zergs that rather like to avoid each other
    however how should in your opinion basecapture be changed? cause i currently don´t see any better way than it currently is without making it more complex or convoluted ...
    continent locking could go back to include victory points but that would require a better system than last time
    were hive´s were too dominant in that system and the rather imo unballanced distribution of VP´s between small and larger latticebases ....

    naval could be fun but it could as well be ignored ... it DEFINITIVELY will require lots of resources making a map with it in mind and create the assets for it which i simply doubt dbg has the resources to do so ..

    and while i don´t entirely disagree with demigan on oshur it IS a matter of fact that DBG needs to prioritise on optimizing what they have already ... ... hossin and esamir are still a problem, esf´s, A2A, A2G and G2A are still a problem .. MAX´s are still a problem .. some infantryclasses being entirely screwed against armor imo is still a problem ..

    and yet we get another series of rather imo questionable factionweapons ... granted these ARE what keep make dbg money ..
    but it doesn´t change that the game still has a number of big constructionsides to be done first ..
  15. Sky_collapsed BL

    I don't like the idea of it been able to attack ground, there's already enough ground spam as it is but certainly having an aircraft solely desinged to deal with libs and gals would be nice.

    As for that weapon, I didn't actually see the shot so kinda hard to dodge something i didn't see but 95 percent health in one hit still seems a bit excessive when you consider how hard a gal/lib is to destroy.

    With how long it can take to capture bases in this game i think it would be fine to increase the points you get for a kill. if memory serves me correctly i don't think you even get points for defending? also what do you mean by hit and run? I wouldn't want to encourage people doing harasser hit'n runs for more points, that would simply just be annoying.

    It shouldn't but it is. even without xp gain you can still easily make a good 30-100 cert a day, that beats the pants off getting into battle.
  16. Sky_collapsed BL

    I liked the way it was before when this game was fresh n new. But if we had to go with some sort of system could in terms of cont locking could we not try some sort of percentage locking thing?

    First faction to reach 100 percent control wins. I don't know how that would work out but surely it could at least be trialed on the PTS server?

    As for actual bases maybe make some new lattice systems or something. it gets very boring fighting in the same few bases over and over again.

Share This Page